It seems that our starting point was whether pulling or maintaining guard as a defence against a standing opponent was an MMA habit unsuitable for all-out car park monkey fights. In paralell we're arguing about whether the standing or the grounded fighter are the most to blame for the stale mate this can turn into.

Originally Posted by Omar

"No you come down here..."

"No YOU stand up! . .

No you...

No you....

This exhange is more or less what happened in Werdum vs. Kharitonov, and depending on context this could, as thomaspaine pointed out, be valid as a self defence outcome for either or both combatants. Though obviously I'm not advocating preemptive guard pulling, it's not necessarily retarded to end up there.

While this stalemate may be OK for the street, it's obviously sub-optimal for the ring.

In the ring the guard puller is stalling because he's adopted a purely defensive position, however a fighter walking away from the grounded guy and waiting for the ref to stand them up is not exactly pressing the action. If you put someone on the canvas and don't want to grapple, then what I'd like to see is the Chute Boxe foot-through-to-face guard pass, or similar, rather than having the ref intervene up so you can knock him down again. MMA is, or should be, about following the fight wherever it goes, rather than gaming the rules to make yourself a boxing match.

The RBSDers are right when they say that the MMA habbit of "throwing guard" to force a ground fight is not logical for SD. But that's no reason not to practice guard as a contingency. In SD I'd rationalize that if you find yourself on the ground with the opponent trying to GnP you then pulling guard is better than anything else I've seen being taught -but that you need to seek a reversal ASAP rather than "lay and pray" type tactics.

The RBSDers are right when they say that the MMA habbit of "throwing guard" to force a ground fight is not logical for SD. But that's no reason not to practice guard as a contingency. In SD I'd rationalize that if you find yourself on the ground with the opponent trying to GnP you then pulling guard is better than anything else I've seen being taught -but that you need to seek a reversal ASAP rather than "lay and pray" type tactics.

It depends on context really. If I know help is on the way, i.e. I see the plods coming round the corner or my mate running to fetch his ICBM, then staying in guard and defending might be just the stall I need. Similarly it might work to defuse a situation, as it allows my opponent to construct a narrative where he put me down and gave me a kicking then strode off manfully, his honour restored.

I think we can agree that the guard definitely has self defence applications, and I think any RBSD program that didn't teach it would be deficient.

What do you mean by 'throwing guard'? I think dragging an opponent down into your guard could certainly have applications in this alleged 'real world', especially if your aim is control or restraint; while just lieing down probably much less so. I can't recall ever really seeing the latter in MMA, though I'm happy to be corrected.

With "throwing guard" I mean using it too pro-actively to seek a position of groundfighting -an example would be switching a standing guillotine to a flying guillotine (not that flying guillotines in themselves aren't wotth knowing). pro-actively seeking guard could be used successfully but it isn't logical in SD. Spinning kicks could be effective in SD but that doesn't mean you should train them for it. When the **** hits the fan most of us won't have the presence of mind to filter the 'suitible' from the foolish -we have to rely on our training and raw instinct.

With "throwing guard" I mean using it too pro-actively to seek a position of groundfighting -an example would be switching a standing guillotine to a flying guillotine

I agree that this would be retarded, but is it necessarily insane to, for example, pull guard from the clinch in order to control a larger opponent?

Wouldn't relying on 'canned' responses trained until they're instinctual be a worse idea on the street than in MMA? In the latter the circumstances are always broadly similar, so the same move is always likely to apply. In the West Side Story gang stand off however the 'right' tactical move could be a strategic disaster.

This is an interesting thread, and it's good to see that some practitioners are secure enough in their own training methodology to accept possible flaw in their strategem.

Sure, training with the "MMA Sport Fighting" mentality and goal is probably the most effective manner to completely condition someone for "realistic fights". The combination of simplicity, intensity, full-contact, and aliveness create a dynamic that covers as much ground as we'll probably see...all while keeping contained in a relatively safe (HA! Say that to the guy that broke his shin after a blocked leg kick) medium.

We get it. No need to defend it.

So, if we can look at one of the most effective training methods AND look for holes that could be filled...then we're gravy.

I've only had a few "street fights", and all were pretty boring.

During one I was basically attacked by a flailing wanna be gang banger, and I got smacked in the head so many times that I thought I'd pass out. I reflexively clinched low, swung around, and took the back (yay BJJ cross training!). We fell, I RNC, he freaked out, and I took off running like a little girl.

So...grappling is teh d34dly, right? Well...it worked for me that ONE time. He was bigger and meaner, I was scared and incapable of the fine motor control necessary for my "SKK techniques" at that time (not that they would have worked). Luckily, there were no other guys around and he had no weapons...two factors that I didn't train for that could have cost me my life.

As for the "Pulling Guard" debate...I was actually taught in a way that SPECIFICALLY utilized the guard, and every randori session was executed from either the guard or the mount.

Why?

At first I thought it sounded stupid, but the explanation made sense.

Basically, most of us are nice, adult people that really just want to go home and masturbate after a long, hard day at our respective jobs. We don't want to go to prison, we don't look for fights, and we basically want to get along with people.

Therefore, the most probable "Self Defense" scenario that involved grappling would probably result from an attack that forced us into the ground...since we'd otherwise try and talk it out or escape. In addition, the unknown factor of battlefield debris and additional assailants really confuse the issue of proactive ground defense.

With this in mind, two grappling scenarios come up:

--I'm walking home with a bag of groceries when some asshole decides he wants to attack me for some reason (robbery, boredom, rape, whatever). Since I won't want to actively grapple on the ground with him (in other words, I won't be taking the fight to the floor), the odds are that a ground encounter will entail him tackling me forcefully to the floor...upon which I:

1. Get completely surprised and end up mounted.

or

2. Training kicks in and I slap on the guard reflexively.

Therefore, all training began in these disadvantageous positions...rather than back to back or at the jujutsu "Kumi Uchi" sleeve/neck hold. Transitions and such were taught...but the attitude held was that if you couldn't defend yourself while mounted or while holding the guard...then you're essentially fucked.

Turtling is perfectly valid in a pure grappling context. It even works in MMA because of the protections against direct attacks to the spine or base of the neck. Take out those rules and it immediately becomes just about the most dangerous position you could possibly put yourself in.

When striking is allowed, turtling also becomes a way to create space. A significant blow requires space. Turtling goads the guy into giving it by raising up to get a significant shot in. Then (as happened to me) the turtler *leaves the turtle*; he's coiled for a single or double leg. The turtler has to have his head toward you.

You keep thinking of the position strictly in the context of delaying as in a Judo or BJJ match. Again, I'm going by what I've seen and felt; I'm not great at it myself.

[Disclaimer]I'm not a grappler by any means, and the closest thing I come to getting into fights are when the whole Mac vs. Windows issue comes up[/Disclaimer]

In a Self Defense situation, wouldn't it make sense for a pure grappler to try their best take the fight to the ground or even "throw guard" if that's where they'll most likely to be able to end the fight the quickest and to their advantage.

When striking is allowed, turtling also becomes a way to create space. A significant blow requires space. Turtling goads the guy into giving it by raising up to get a significant shot in. Then (as happened to me) the turtler *leaves the turtle*; he's coiled for a single or double leg. The turtler has to have his head toward you.

You keep thinking of the position strictly in the context of delaying as in a Judo or BJJ match. Again, I'm going by what I've seen and felt; I'm not great at it myself.

Sorry... I'm confused. Are you talking about judo 'turtling' or 'pulling the guard'.

Turtling, sometimes called the 'chair position', is when you are face down on your elbows and knees, trying to keep your head and neck in.

I can see that a desperate person might be able to attack from that position, but it might cost you a few hard boots to the head and ribs.

I agree that this would be retarded, but is it necessarily insane to, for example, pull guard from the clinch in order to control a larger opponent?

Relative to a rar standing choke restraint? if we try to dream up scenarios where our choice moves may be useful would make us guilty of what so many bullshidoists are guilty of; trying to make 'reality' fit the training rather than vice versa.

Wouldn't relying on 'canned' responses trained until they're instinctual be a worse idea on the street than in MMA? In the latter the circumstances are always broadly similar, so the same move is always likely to apply.

That would depend on what you mean by 'canned' responses.

In general MMA guys train to have a broad responce to a general situation rather than lots of really specifiuc moves -this approach favours Alive training and the Alive training builds the approach. That general approach is (IMO) equally applicable to SD except that some of the reference points are slightly different. The worry would be doing sport-orientated MMA training and subconsiously trying to apply the same responses (a few of which are not applicable) to SD. An analogy would be a Judoka who turtles up when knocked to the ground (a common tactic in Judo). Etc.

It would be equally silly to train purely within an SD reference system and then try to apply it to MMA.